Guest guest Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 > Subject: > Another_Reason_for_Schools_to_Ban_Genetically_Engineered_Foods > " GM_WATCH " <info > Sat, 4 Sep 2004 11:32:44 +0100 > > GM WATCH daily > http://www.gmwatch.org > --- > excerpt: " ...animal nutrition studies are typically > conducted on young, developing animals. After the > feeding trial, organs are weighed and often studied > under magnification. If scientists used mature > animals instead of young ones, even severe > nutritional problems might not be detected. The > Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young > ones. > > " They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein > 10- or 12-fold before feeding the animals. And they > never weighed the organs or examined them under a > microscope. The study, which is the only major > animal feeding study on GM soy ever published, is > dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding > problems. " > --- > Newsletter on GM Foods, September issue: Spilling > the Beans > Institute for Responsible Technology > > Another Reason for Schools to Ban > Genetically Engineered Foods > > By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception > > Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced > their cafeteria's processed foods with wholesome, > nutritious food, the school was described as > out-of-control. There were weapons violations, > student disruptions, and a cop on duty full-time. > After the change in school meals, the students were > calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more > weapons violations, and no suicides, expulsions, > dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet and > improved behavior has lasted for seven years, and > now other schools are changing their meal programs > with similar results. > > Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support > for their new diet by conducting a cruel and unusual > experiment with three mice. They fed them the junk > food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. > The mice freaked out. Their behavior was totally > different than the three mice in the > neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good > karma; they were fed nutritious whole foods and > behaved like mice. They slept during the day > inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, > and acted very mouse-like. The junk food mice, on > the other hand, destroyed their cardboard > tube, were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with > each other, fought often, and two mice eventually > killed the third and ate it. After the three > month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two > surviving junk food mice with a diet of whole foods. > After about three weeks, the mice came > around. > > Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every > year in her second grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, > but mercifully, for only four days. Even on the > first day of junk food, the mice's behavior " changes > drastically. " They become lazy, antisocial, and > nervous. And it still takes the mice about two to > three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to > normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the > experiment again a few months later with the same > mice, but this time the animals refused to eat the > junk food. > > Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group > of mice genetically modified (GM) corn and soy, and > another group the non-GM variety. The GM > mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew > into their own parts of the cage. When the student > tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behaved > neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent > fear and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the > GM group was found dead at the end of the > experiment. > > It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to > the mice in the Wisconsin experiments also contained > genetically modified ingredients. And although the > Appleton school lunch program did not specifically > attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway. > That's because GM foods such as soy and corn and > their derivatives are largely found in processed > foods. So when the school > switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all > ingredients derived from GM crops were taken out > automatically. > > Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the > behavior of humans or animals? It would certainly be > irresponsible to say so on the basis of a single > student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. > On the other hand, it is equally irresponsible to > say that it doesn't. > > We are just beginning to understand the influence of > food on behavior. A study in Science in December > 2002 concluded that " food molecules act like > hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering > cell division. The molecules can cause mental > imbalances ranging from attention-deficit and > hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness. " > The problem is we do not know which food molecules > have what effect. The bigger problem is that the > composition of GM foods can change radically without > our knowledge. > > Genetically modified foods have genes inserted into > their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don't just > snap into place. Gene insertion creates unpredicted, > irreversible changes. In one study, for example, a > gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a > single foreign gene was inserted. As much as 5 > percent of the DNA's genes changed the amount of > protein they were producing. Not only is that huge > in itself, but these changes can multiply > through complex interactions down the line. > > In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in > the composition of GM foods, they are typically > measured for only a small number of known nutrient > levels. But even if we could identify all the > changed compounds, at this point we wouldn't know > which might be responsible for the antisocial nature > of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning > to identify the medicinal compounds in food. We now > know, for example, that the pigment in blueberries > may revive the brain's neural communication system, > and the antioxidant > found in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce > heart disease. But what about other valuable > compounds we don't know about that might change or > disappear in GM varieties? > > Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on > the market, independent researchers published a > study showing that it contains 12-14 percent less > cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has > changed that we don't know about? [Monsanto > responded with its own study, which concluded that > soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even > carry out a statistical analysis. They failed to > disclose, however, that the laboratory that > conducted Monsanto's experiment had been instructed > to use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens - > one that had been replaced due to its highly > variable results.] > > In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal > of Nutrition that concluded in the title, " The > composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean > seeds is equivalent to that of conventional > soybeans. " The study only compared a small number of > nutrients and a close look at their charts > revealed significant differences in the fat, ash, > and carbohydrate content. In addition, GM soy meal > contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor, a > well-known soy allergen. The study also used > questionable methods. Nutrient comparisons are > routinely conducted on plants grown in identical > conditions so that variables such as weather and > soil can be ruled out. Otherwise, differences in > plant composition could be easily missed. In > Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely > varying climates and geography. > > Although one of their trials was a side-by-side > comparison between GM and non-GM soy, for some > reason the results were left out of the paper > altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the > missing data in the archives of the Journal of > Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the > scientists left them out. The GM soy showed > significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, > and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, > toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the > amount of a lectin that may block the body's ability > to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, the > toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the > amount of trypsin inhibitor, indicating that the > allergen may survive cooking more in the GM > variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump in > soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was > introduced.) > > We don't know all the changes that occur with > genetic engineering, but certainly GM crops are not > the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports > from all over North America describe how several > types of animals, when given a choice, avoided > eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk, > deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, > the Dutch student mentioned above first determined > that his mice had a two-to-one preference for non-GM > before forcing half of them to eat only the > engineered variety. > > Differences in GM food will likely have a much > larger impact on children. They are three to four > times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they > convert more of the food into body-building > material. Altered nutrients or added toxins can > result in developmental problems. For this reason, > animal > nutrition studies are typically conducted on young, > developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs > are weighed and often studied under magnification. > If scientists used mature animals instead of young > ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be > detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals > instead of young ones. > > They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein > 10- or 12-fold before feeding the animals. And they > never weighed the organs or examined them > under a microscope. The study, which is the only > major animal feeding study on GM soy ever published, > is dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding > problems. > > Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment > going on - an uncontrolled one which we are all a > part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without > knowing the impact of these foods on our health, our > behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools > around the world, particularly in Europe, have > decided not to let their kids be used as guinea > pigs. They have banned GM foods. > > The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods > is only one of several reasons why these foods may > be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse (see > http://www.seedsofdeception.com). With the epidemic > of obesity and diabetes and with the results in > Appleton, parents and schools are waking up to the > critical role that diet plays. When making changes > in what kids eat, removing GM foods should be a > priority. > > --- > > A videotape on changing school meals, including > footage from Appleton, will be available in the > fall, 2004 at www.seedsofdeception.com. The website > also describes how to avoid eating GM foods. > > ---------- > ---- > > © Copyright 2004 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is > granted to reproduce > this in whole or in part. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.